As I am working through the games, I find myself going over the ideal time and I miss a few of the answers. However, when I redo the games, my speed increases and I get more answers correct, sometimes perfect score.

When I take the LSAT, all of the games will be new to me, so I am worried that my speed and accuracy may be hindered. I am worried!

Should I be worried about this, or is this a normal process when introduced to unfamiliar games during this program?

In my opinion, this is the hardest question on PT 58. I missed it because I didn't understand what B was saying. Can someone help me translate it/evaluate my translation of B into English? Here is my breakdown for this one:

There are eight craters in a straight line somewhere. Some of these craters have rocks that have undergone high pressure shocks. These shocks could have been caused by meteors or volcanoes. Since the craters are in a straight line, it isn't likely the existence of the craters is due to both meteors and volcanoes. Since the craters are different ages, it must have been volcanoes.

What I am looking for: We need to strengthen the argument. The argument seems to be making an either/or but not both argument. In other words, the craters were caused by either volcanoes or meteors, but not both. The argument is assuming that saying something about the ages of craters is evidence that it was NOT meteors. That's the assumption.

Answer A: This is what I chose, but I really didn't like it. I think this does actually strengthen the conclusion because it provides some evidence that volcanoes can actually create a "similar" line of craters. However, I don't like this answer very much because the line was "shorter" and the craters were the "same age." This doesn't address the assumption that age matters since it controls for that factor. So although this does strengthen the conclusion, it doesn't strengthen the argument.

Answer B: This is the correct answer, but I am having a very tough time translating this into English. This is saying that there is no known natural cause that could account for 8 meteor craters of different ages in a straight line; I probably should have chosen this answer in hindsight since it is the only answer choice that even talks about a relevant case of different aged craters. I think we can assume two things from this answer choice: volcanoes are a natural thing and meteors are a natural thing. Here is my translation:

1.) There is no known volcano that would likely account for the craters being from a meteor. To me this is like a "duh?" statement. Volcanoes and meteors are independent things. Of course volcanoes wouldn't account for the meteor craters.

2.) There is no known meteor that would likely account for the craters being from a meteor. I think this is the reason why this answer strengthens the argument. Does this flat out deny the chance that meteors were the cause? I think at best it only sort of does since the idea of "known" isn't all encompassing. There could be cases that we don't know about. So, in my mind, at best this is a pretty weak strengthener. It depends heavily on the idea that what is "known" is actually a reliable thing to use as evidence in this inductive argument.

Answer C: I think this severely weakens the argument since it suggests that it was neither meteors nor volcanoes. Definitely don't want this one.

Answer D: This is similar to C. This weakens the argument since this suggests that volcanoes were not the cause.

Answer E: This is another trap answer choice that I had a tough time eliminating during the timed exam. I think this answer is very similar to A in that it does strengthen the conclusion, but not the argument. This answer choice suggests that a single meteor shower couldn't have created the craters. However, what about meteors from different showers at different times? Being from the same meteor shower implies that the craters that would have been potentially created would be roughly the same age, which wouldn't create an analogous situation to begin with.

http://classic.7sage.com/lsat_explanations/lsat-58-section-4-question-23/

I am pretty clueless on this one. I had the answer down to C or D, and I chose D (kept it during BR). I am completely lost as to how E is the weakener, so help would be greatly appreciated. Here is my breakdown:

This is a weaken question.

Few graduate students are aware of the attempt to unionize (some are aware; most are not aware). From there, I diagrammed the rest:

Grad students MOST not aware

Grad students SOME aware‑m→believe union would not represent their interest or do a bad job pursuing those interests

Therefore, grad students‑m→disapprove. Therefore, grad students shouldn't unionize.

What I am looking for: A lot wrong with this one. First, the argument assumes that if most of a group disapprove of something, then that thing shouldn't be done; this is sort of like an appeal to the crowd fallacy. What if it is in everyone's best interest for everyone eat their vegetables, but most people don't want to do it? Second, the argument makes an invalid inference. We don't know if MOST grad students disapprove. We only know that SOME of them are aware and Most are not aware (does no awareness mean disapproval? What if they are just ignorant?) Along the same lines, the argument is assuming that believing the union would not represent their interests/believing that the union wouldn't effectively pursue their interests is the same thing as disapproval. Lastly, the argument seems to be making a pro vs. con flaw by ignoring the potential benefits/pros of unionizing. The argument only talks about the possibility that the union won't have some people's interests in mind or won't be effective. What if there are things that outweigh those potential cons? The argument doesn't even address that relevant concern.

Answer A: What long standing practice?

Answer B: Fails to exclude alternative explanations? Why does the argument need to do this? We presumably have a few reasons why the students don't like the idea.

Answer C: I had it down to this one and D. I eliminated this one because something not being a good idea isn't mentioned in the passage. Just because something "shouldn't be done" doesn't necessarily imply that that thing isn't a good idea. I think this answer choice would have been better if "not a good idea" were substituted for "not be done."

Answer D: I was pretty confident with this answer choice, and I kept it during BR. Doesn't the argument do this? The argument is limiting it self to the potential cons of unionizing: it might not represent the interests of people or it might do a bad job representing the interest of people. What if there are other reasons to unionize that outweigh those concerns?

Answer E: This is the correct answer, but I felt 100% confident eliminating it. Does the argument equivocate on active disapproval and lack of approval? I don't see where it does this. Sure, it blurs the distinction between active disapproval (assuming that those who are aware of the union and believe that the union won't have their interests at heart/think the union won't do an effective job disapprove) and lack of awareness, but I don't see where the argument conflates active disapproval and mere lack of approval.

If AC "C" only said "children tend to have more acute tastes: therefore, they zero in on foods with the most distinctive tastes" I would have seen it as being the correct AC right away, but instead this answer goes on to state they get sick more often than adults do? I thought we were not supposed to make assumptions or add things that aren't there when dealing with MSS question types? Although every other AC seemed no good, what popped into my head when looking at AC "C" is how do we know... children become sick more than adults do -where does it state this or is it even allude to it in the stimulus? Any insight would be nice. Thanks!

I changed my answer to A during BR since B-E are really bad, but I am not seeing how the company president "takes for granted " (assumes) what answer choice A states. Here is my breakdown:

For the new job, we are only going to interview people who have worked for the best firms. Therefore, when we choose someone, we will surely have selected one of the best people.

What I am looking for: This is a classic whole to part flaw. Maybe synergies or something creates the emergent property of being in the "top 1%." Also, is being in the top 1% even considered the best? What if the top 1% are very good, but only the top .01% are considered the best? The author's metric for "best" could be bad

Answer A: I confidently eliminated this one during the timed exam, which caused me to spin my wheels on B-E, which caused me to miss this one. During BR, I eliminated B-E first and chose this. But, I don't really understand where the author takes this idea for granted. To me, this isn't describing the "whole to part" flaw nor attacking the author's "best" metric. Specifically, the conclusion talks about "selecting one of the best." But, I don't see how this idea is limited only to the management consultants at top firms. Couldn't the author think that there are also some of the best at not top management firms? The author doesn't say anything to the contrary, so couldn't it be true? In my mind the word "only" is too strong; if this word was replaced with "sometimes," then I think this answer choice becomes more apparent. In other words, I just don't see where the author erroneously presumes this answer choice.

Additionally, say that there 200 firms. He is limiting is search to just the top 2 firms (the 1%). The company president makes no claim about people in the other 198 firms. Why couldn't a member of a top 4% firm be one of the best?

Answer B: What sample?

Answer C: This is what I chose during the timed exam, and the only reason I chose it was because I had to pick something (I had already eliminated A). This answer choice is backwards. It describes a "part to whole" flaw. If this answer choice were reversed, then I think it would work.

Answer D: Accepting? Irrelevant idea.

Answer E: Competent at every task? Irrelevant.

PT70 Section4 # 17

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't important but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

I had a very tough time with this question, can someone evaluate my analysis of A, D, and E for me?

This is a weaken question.

The Kiffer Forest Preserve (KFP), which is a part of the A Valley, is where most of the bears in the valley live. The main road through the KFP has been closed for 8 years. During those 8 years, the bear population in the KFP has doubled. Therefore, the A Valley's population will increase if the road is kept closed.

What I am looking for: I think there are a few things wrong with this argument. First is the "part to whole" flaw. It is true that the KFP's population increased, but is that support for the idea that the entire valley's population will increase? Not really. What if the bears just moved there from other parts of the valley? Second is the causal flaw. What if there was something else that led to the increase in the bear population, and the road being closed is spurious? Third is the futuristic prediction. Let's assume that closing the road was the reason for the increase in the bear population, will continuing to keep it closed work? What if the bear population is at max capacity right now and no new bears can live there? You'd have to assume that that isn't the case.

Answer A: I had a very tough time eliminating this one, and I originally chose it during the timed exam. I had enough time to come back to it, and I did change it. I think this is wrong because to weaken the argument, you have to assume that the migration came entirely from other parts of the valley. But, that isn't an OK assumption. This answer choice leaves open the possibility that the migration came entirely from outside the valley.

Answer B: I think this may strengthen the argument since it sort of implies that migration from other parts of the valley was not another cause of the population increase in KFP.

Answer C: This is superficially similar to B, but it is wrong for a different reason. The statement is too weak to undermine the argument. Sure, the population increase in KFP didn't come from bears outside the valley, but what if the bears in KFP just had more babies or something due to cars not scaring off the bears? This answer choice doesn't do a whole lot.

Answer D: I changed my answer from A to this one. I think this is wrong because leaving out the rate of increase in KFP is important. Say that it is true that the population of the bears outside the KFP decreased a little bit, but what if bear population in the KFP increased by a million times? This scenario might strengthen the argument since the total population of the valley would still increase, even though only one small part of the valley is responsible for the increase.

Answer E: This is what I changed my answer to during BR. If the total population of the valley remained the same, then the doubling of the KFP population was solely due to internal migration. It wouldn't make any sense to say that the increase in the population of a part (KFP) transfers to a population increase of the whole.

For #17: Parallel Form

I got confused on how to diagram it (I understood everything except how to diagram (Note: the way I diagram for these is using broad A-->B,etc since the context isn't impotrant but the form of the logic is):

The stimulus says that:

-some halogen lamps are well-crafted

-because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

-and any item on display at FL is well-crafted

I wrote it as

some A-->B or A(--some-)B

A-->C

C-->B

But my diagram is wrong for:

because halogen lamps from most major manufacturers are on display at FL

it should be A(-some-)C

why is it some?

For #23:Parallel Flaw

like in #17 I had trouble diagramming a part of this stim.

The stimulus says that:

Almost every SP in the past had MTC

Using MTC to introduce VB

Therefore VB will be a SP

I diagrammed:

A-->B

B-->C

-----------

C-->A

But for "Using MTC to introduce VB" is suppose to be diagrammed as:

C-->B

Why? And why is my diagram wrong?

Just want to confirm my diagram of "Not Otherwise" is correct.

A police officer is eligible for a Mayor's Commendation if the officer has exemplary record, but not otherwise.

Exemplary Record >> Eligible

Not (Exemplary Record) >> Not (Eligible)

This is kind of a dumb question and I feel like no one else has this problem, but I've realized I constantly make mistakes identifying the scope or relevance of an AC on logical reasoning (RC too). If I'm choosing between two answer choices, I'll choose the more tempting one and later realize it was out of scope, and the right AC was really subtle.

Does anyone have any suggestions for this/exercises I can try/lessons I should focus on? I think I read carefully but I really don't know how far away I can go from the scope of the stimulus

i finally get logic games. i get 9/10 correct but each game takes me around 15 minutes. What can i do to cut it in 1/2 without sacrificing accuracy?

thanks

Ok so when you get a question that asks you to find the argument with the most simillar reasoning or matches the arguement above are they never a flawed argument? I know we get questions that ask you to match the flaw but I am hoping to use this thinking to eliminate a wrong answer choice or two is this holds.

In short if the Question stem does not say "flaw" is it ok to assume the correct answer choice and the argument in the stimulus are logical arguments?

For #26: I understand why (E) is wrong because the stim. is not defending (never says if right or wrong) but I was just wondering if someone could explain the difference between context and fact (this is what confused me answer (D) says historical fact while (E) says historical context, I just wanted to get a better understand of context vs fact in case it shows up on another question then I can eliminate them even quicker) Thanks :)

I've take PT 35-58 (58 this morning), and I am in the frustrating 168-172 range. Prior to the 50s, I was consistently going -2/-3 (with a few -0s here and there) on RC. Besides the games, I would have said that RC was my easiest/most consistent section. However, ever since PT 50, my RC score has just been awful: I've averaged -6 to -7 in this section, which has just brutalized my score (my past 3 or 4 exams have been significantly lower than my average because of this). Today was the most frustrating; I thought I turned a corner and aced the RC section, but I went -6. BR was -5 (which is still not what I am looking for). Any advice? I don't really think the passages in the 50s were that different from the other previous exams.

Okay, this question has got me. I'm BRing it, and I honestly cannot rule one answer out with confidence. That never happens. A, C, and D all seem pretty subjective to me, "mischaracterizing what Brooks says", "unhappiness varying in intensity of significance" ....are these not more ambiguous and generic than usual, or am I crazy? (actually, please don't answer that, I'm pretty sure I already know the answer) lol.

Could a kind soul please explain which one is correct, why, and why the other 4 are incorrect?

Thank you!

I was between B/E and choose B because I immediately crossed out E b/c of the term HIGHLY productive which isn't stated in the stimulus (but E was right)

- can anyone explain this to me and also why E right over B Thanks :)

Hello everyone!

I am desperately looking for advice on how to improve my LR score. I have been studying on and off for my LSAT over the past 2 years with lengthy breaks in between (studying during my Master's was a bad idea). My original diagnostic score was a sad 138 and now I'm scoring around a 153. I know it is really hard to come up from such a low score, but I'm determined.

I have seen some improvements and have hired a private tutor, but my LR score is stagnating. The most I ever get correct in a given section is 15 and I usually get to anywhere between 17-20 questions on any given LR section. I time myself religiously and almost every single time I get 15 correct. I want to score in the low 160s this December and I am currently dedicating all of my time to studying. I know I am having a serious time management issue, but I'm not sure how to fix it. My goal is to get a minimum of 20 correct on LR.

I review every single one of the problems I get wrong, but I cannot seem to break this pattern. Are my goals realistic and if so how do I achieve them?

Any advice would be greatly appreciated!

Hello all,

I really need some sage advice.

I have been following the LG attack strategy and the foolproof review method for LG sections. LG is by far my biggest trouble area. I know you gotta get LG perfect to see scores above 170s. LG is the section that is holding me back in high 160s area, and I am really really desperate to change this before the December test.

People say LG is the easiest section to improve, but for me.... I just can't do games well under a timed condition!! I can solve games well when I am just drilling non-timed.

Besides following the LG attack strategy Mr. Pacifico kindly shared with the community.... is there anything else I should be doing to get perfect on LG....? I would really really appreciate any advice. I never expected LG would be such a problem for me :(

Would anyone be willing to discuss their explanations with me? I have handful of questions from each section, especially Game 3.

Hi guys,

For question #2, we are asked to break down this argument into premises, conclusion, and context.

The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its health related benefits with its potential risks. Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers. For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their enjoyment of the beverage. This particular additive should not be banned, therefore, because its benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

This was my answer:

Context: The common procedure for determining whether a food additive should be banned from use is to compare its [food additive] health related benefits with its potential risks.

Premise: Yellow Dye No. 5, an additive used to color lemon soda, might cause allergic reactions in a few consumers.

Premise: For most consumers of lemon soda, however, the coloring enhances their [most consumers] enjoyment of the beverage.

Premise/Sub Conclusion: because its [Yellow Dye No. 5] benefits greatly outweigh its risks.

Main Conclusion: This particular additive [Yellow Dye No. 5] should not be banned.

J.Y.'s was different. Can people explain to me why my answer is wrong? It makes sense to me since the first two premises explain why the sub conclusion (Yellow Dye No.5 benefits greatly outweigh its risks) which then in turn supports the main conclusion. Thanks!

Admin note: This is the lesson:

http://classic.7sage.com/lesson/quiz-context-identification-1-answers/

I am doing the Miscellaneous Questions Problem Set 5, and 18.4.21 has me really confused. I googled the meaning and got this: http://ell.stackexchange.com/questions/11060/how-to-use-what-is-more

To me it boils down to "furthermore." If that is the case, then how is B not the correct answer? Wouldn't starting your response argument with "furthermore..." mean that you are using the same premises as the previous argument?

Independently, I don't see how E accurately describes the relationship between the arguments. What is the conflicting supposition? I think this answer choice is trying to get you to assume that since there is no general agreement in evaluating the merits of sound (Jane's argument), Mark's claim about "tonal quality" conflicts with that idea. But, isn't tone a more refined idea than sound?

I Googled the definition of sound and got: "vibrations that travel through the air or another medium and can be heard when they reach a person's or animal's ear." The definition of tone according to Google is: "A musical tone is a steady periodic sound. A musical tone is characterized by its duration, pitch, intensity (or loudness), and timbre (or quality). The notes used in music can be more complex than musical tones, as they may include aperiodic aspects, such as attack transients, vibrato, and envelope modulation."

Sound to me could be anything: random noises to steady/periodic/intentional sound choice. Musical tone, which is a type of sound, has to more with the latter than the former. Doesn't this mean that Jane's premises about sound and Mark's premise about tone both be true? Aren't sound and tone related, but not completely synonymous? I don't see how they necessarily conflict, which is what answer choice E states.

For the regular weaken and strengthen questions, I am starting to get better. However, when it comes to causation, I am really confused. There is so much information to take in.

Can someone please give me some pointers?

I am beginning to PT since i last took a Kaplan course. They suggested that at 12 or 15 you skip to 26 and work backward basically skipping the 2nd to last full page and working back to middle. Does anyone else do this ? is it silly or good advice?

Can't understand this question for the life of me. Might be because I don't have a good science background.

The author says explicitly in lines 34-42 that because the "magnetic fields of basalts in NA are aligned quite differently from rocks formed in the same epoch in Europe" this supports the theory of continental drift.

Doesn't (C) undermine this since it talks about some being the same magnetic field alignment? And how is (A) the answer? The seafloor spreading supports contintental drift since it shows that the plates move. Isn't (A) just something additional that we were able to figure out?

A and E were easy to eliminate, would appreciate an explanation for why A is right and C and D are wrong. TIA.